Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

So uninhaitated islands that were discovered and claimed, they were always owned? And what aout when America was colonised did someone already own the land and the colonists stole it? Do you seriously think people always owned land?

i didn't say people always owned All the land.

Then, at some point, someone would have to take the land?

besides, that's irrelevant to our argunebt. the fact is that today's society recognises ownership of land. wether ownership was bought, claimed, or inhierited, pretty much all land was privately or federally owned by the time most of the people alive today were born.

That's irrelevant, land had to be taken for private use at one time, taken from common use. The people who took this land therefore owe something to the people, what they owe is what comes from the land. It is not theirs, it is stolen. All wealth comes from appropriation, hoarding of the resources that the world has.

our capitalist society allows for sovereignty. thus i don't have to give/share anything if i don't want to.

No, your capitalist society is based on the notion that there is always more land, my capitalist society is based upon the idea that ownership of land is a privaledge, not a right. It is based upon the social contract.

At 1/5/03 10:41 AM, Slizor wrote:

That's irrelevant, land had to be taken for private use at one time, taken from common use. The people who took this land therefore owe something to the people, what they owe is what comes from the land.

if that's true, then why would the people who claimed the land owe anything to anyone? by your statement they didn't own it either.

It is not theirs, it is stolen. All wealth comes from appropriation, hoarding of the resources that the world has.

are you saying it's stealing to grow carrots in your back yard? are you also saying it's wrong to be rich?

No, your capitalist society is based on the notion that there is always more land, my capitalist society is based upon the idea that ownership of land is a privaledge, not a right. It is based upon the social contract.

first of all, i never said or gave the notion that there is "always more land". thomas paine was wrong when he said that property was a natural right. but if you own property you have sovereignty over what it yeilds.

and what is this "social contract" you speak of?

if that's true, then why would the people who claimed the land owe anything to anyone? by your statement they didn't own it either.

The land was for all. All things needed for human survival on this planet come from the land, humans have a natural right to take what they need for survival. For example, in the wild, it is a tiger's right to kill and eat a buffalo, yet they do not own the buffalo. Land is not needed for survival, but in taking it you deny other people of it and its wares, which are needed for survival. In that sense you are stealing from everyone unless you only take what you yourself need for survival, but people didn't do that.

It is not theirs, it is stolen. All wealth comes from appropriation, hoarding of the resources that the world has.

are you saying it's stealing to grow carrots in your back yard?

If you grow more than you need and do not give away the surplus you are taking more than is right.

are you also saying it's wrong to be rich?

I'm not saying it is wrong to be rich, I'm just saying how people are rich.

No, your capitalist society is based on the notion that there is always more land, my capitalist society is based upon the idea that ownership of land is a privaledge, not a right. It is based upon the social contract.

first of all, i never said or gave the notion that there is "always more land".

Indeed you didn't, but that it the idea America is based on.

thomas paine was wrong when he said that property was a natural right. but if you own property you have sovereignty over what it yeilds.

Why?

and what is this "social contract" you speak of?

Jean-Jacques Rousseau's "The Social Contract". A book which the core beliefs of Europe are based around.

At 1/5/03 05:00 PM, Slizor wrote:

If you grow more than you need and do not give away the surplus you are taking more than is right.

i cannot think of a better definition of communism than what you have just said.

Indeed you didn't, but that is the idea America is based on.

is that so? i'd like to hear you expound on this.

thomas paine was wrong when he said that property was a natural right. but if you own property you have sovereignty over what it yeilds.

Why?

if you own the property, you own whatever vegetation that is on it, pre-existing or self-cultivated. ownership=sovereignty.

If you grow more than you need and do not give away the surplus you are taking more than is right.

i cannot think of a better definition of communism than what you have just said.

Well my view is a it more etreme than the systems it has influenced. Seriously, look at the Northern european "social security".

Indeed you didn't, but that is the idea America is based on.

is that so? i'd like to hear you expound on this.

I'm afraid I will have to refer you to a book for I would do it a great mis-service. It is called "The World We're In" by Will Hutton.

At 1/6/03 03:37 PM, Slizor wrote:

Well my view is a it more etreme than the systems it has influenced. Seriously, look at the Northern european "social security".

europe isn't exacyly a trove of good gorvernmental knowledge. socialization means that the people pay more taxes for what they may or may not use/take advantage of. that's not right. i shouldn't have to pay for anything more than what i use. i don't want to pay someone else's medical bill.

and as for being wrong unless i give away all excess, what give another person the right to what i have. if i grow it, i own it. if they didn't grow it, they don't own it. they shouldn't get what i have unless they compensate me for it, in other words, pay.

europe isn't exacyly a trove of good gorvernmental knowledge. socialization means that the people pay more taxes for what they may or may not use/take advantage of. that's not right. i shouldn't have to pay for anything more than what i use. i don't want to pay someone else's medical bill.

See, Europe has a different view of ownership than the American one. Even the Old British Conservative party recognised this. The rich have a responsibility for the poor, because the poor are the people who work for the rich to make them rich.

and as for being wrong unless i give away all excess, what give another person the right to what i have. if i grow it, i own it. if they didn't grow it, they don't own it. they shouldn't get what i have unless they compensate me for it, in other words, pay.

The problem with your argument there is that you won't have grown it, it will have grown.

Slizor, have you ever read a novel by Ayn Rand entitled "Atlas Shrugged?"

It's a story with a lot of philosophy about who owns what, what rights do people have and so on. If you haven't read it, I suggest you do.

At 1/7/03 12:13 PM, Slizor wrote:

The problem with your argument there is that you won't have grown it, it will have grown.

it will have grown by with my planting it, caring for it, and harvesting it. sure it does the growing itself, but it was because of my toil. if some one else does nothing to help this process, why should have any claim over it.

The problem with your argument there is that you won't have grown it, it will have grown.

it will have grown by with my planting it, caring for it, and harvesting it.

Caring for it? It gets sunlight from the sun, water from the rain and nutrients from the soil. It would have planted itself anyhow(just not in neat rows). As for havesting...well you probably should get something for that.

At 1/8/03 10:45 AM, Slizor wrote:

it will have grown by with my planting it, caring for it, and harvesting it.

Caring for it? It gets sunlight from the sun, water from the rain and nutrients from the soil. It would have planted itself anyhow(just not in neat rows).

sure that all would have happened anyway, but not in such number or efficiency as when human intervention is a factor. production increases with human ingenuity.

As for havesting...well you probably should get something for that.

something? i should own all that i harvest.

As for havesting...well you probably should get something for that.

something? i should own all that i harvest.

How do you figure? You didn't do the majority of the work nature did. It should be nature's harvest.

At 1/10/03 10:38 AM, Slizor wrote:

How do you figure? You didn't do the majority of the work nature did. It should be nature's harvest.

it is natural for it to grow, but it is partially unnatural when humans purposefully alter growing conditions. and what would nature do with a harvest? it would reproduce and die. humans harvest it and plant more crops.

it is natural for it to grow, but it is partially unnatural when humans purposefully alter growing conditions. and what would nature do with a harvest? it would reproduce and die. humans harvest it and plant more crops.

When I say it is nature's I mean it belongs to all things of nature, such as humans.

At 1/6/03 08:14 PM, swayside wrote:

At 1/6/03 03:37 PM, Slizor wrote:

europe isn't exacyly a trove of good gorvernmental knowledge. socialization means that the people pay more taxes for what they may or may not use/take advantage of. that's not right. i shouldn't have to pay for anything more than what i use. i don't want to pay someone else's medical bill.

Swayside you are a true capitalist and there is nothing wrong with the beliefs of capitalism, as communism the roots of these two philosophy are just and fair. But you should not blindly hide behind these beliefs and thus fail to reconize its flaws. The only thing stopping capitalism from working is the fact that it encourages greed (the unjust disire to take more than one's fair share of wealth(capitalism)or power(communism)). True, capitalists dont wish to pay for more then they use, and that I gues, is fair. Yet why do they then wish to accumulate more than they need?

because of the greed, There is no balance. Without the social laws, A capitalist society become's barbaric and inhumane. I pity a society that does not help its weak.

-The US is the richest economy in the world and it is constantly working to become even wealthier.

-The US is also the country with the largest social gaps with nearly 1 million homeless.

Why is the US so concerned about Iraq, when in it's own backyard poverty is rampage? My opinion is that the US economy fails to give everybody a fair chance. This is when social laws, like those in europe, step in. Providing a fair chance for everbody.

Do you really believe a human being should die in poverty because you dont wish so pay a few cent more tax, to cover his medical bill! I dont think you meant that.

I believe that the strongest shoulders can and must carry the heaviest load for the better of the society as a whole.
Have we not evolved since the crude days of right of the strongest?

and as for being wrong unless i give away all excess, what give another person the right to what i have. if i grow it, i own it. if they didn't grow it, they don't own it. they shouldn't get what i have unless they compensate me for it, in other words, pay.

Now this the core of the hunger discussion.
Largeland owners own the land that the food grows on. So he owns the food that his land yields. The locals are willing to compensate him for it, in other words pay, but he sells it to the highest bidder.
Nothing wrong with that? Sure, unless you cause people to die of hunger!

Before the begining of time, capitalism or communism.

Man never used more land than he needed,
Never killed more beasts than he could eat.
Fought but never waged war.
Man lived in balance with nature.

Now,

Man takes more than he can use,
Kills more than he can eat,
Wages war and genocide,
thinks he's god above nature.

There is only one more lifeform on earth thats lives in a similar manner, killing its host. You may of heard of it. Its called a virus.

Do we have the right to own land and what can we really control? the volume in our car stereo?
All we have to give up is our dominion or is this too precious for us, living like gods?

I think this quote has something to do with this discussion;

"De fruit of ones own labour tastes the sweetest, says a capitalist. How could he know if he only tastes the fruit of other men"

- Georges van Acker

I dont believe that man can ever creat a form of governing that is fair and equal..

Capitalism and Communism arent perfect because they we're created by humans.

And Humans arent perfect.

The ideals always get lost somewere along the way...

I think a Democratic, capitalistic society with sociallaws is the best governing-form available.. it's not perfect but since we are not perfect it will have to make due.......

At 1/11/03 10:45 AM, IraqNOphobiA wrote:

At 1/6/03 08:14 PM, swayside wrote:

At 1/6/03 03:37 PM, Slizor wrote:

Swayside you are a true capitalist and there is nothing wrong with the beliefs of capitalism, as communism the roots of these two philosophy are just and fair.

cumminism is never fair.

But you should not blindly hide behind these beliefs and thus fail to reconize its flaws.

the only flaws it has now is the socialism incorporated in it.

True, capitalists dont wish to pay for more then they use, and that I gues, is fair.

of course it is.

Yet why do they then wish to accumulate more than they need?

because they're human. everyone wants more than they need. you didn't need the computer you used to post, but you have it anyway.

This is when social laws, like those in europe, step in. Providing a fair chance for everbody.

at the unfair expense of those who took and made their chance.

Do you really believe a human being should die in poverty because you dont wish so pay a few cent more tax, to cover his medical bill! I dont think you meant that.

yes, yes i do. my taxes should never be used to pay a civilian medical bill.

I believe that the strongest shoulders can and must carry the heaviest load for the better of the society as a whole.

i believe that that should be volintary, never forced.

Largeland owners own the land that the food grows on. So he owns the food that his land yields. The locals are willing to compensate him for it, in other words pay, but he sells it to the highest bidder.

why shouldn't he?

Man never used more land than he needed,

before he needed space for the inventions that came along. also he learned to cultivate more crops so he could barter with people who didn't cultivate crops for themselves.

Never killed more beasts than he could eat.

before he knew how to preserve food.

Fought but never waged war.

before there was a large enough population to do so.

There is only one more lifeform on earth thats lives in a similar manner, killing its host. You may of heard of it. Its called a virus.

viruses aren't technically alive.

I think this quote has something to do with this discussion;

"De fruit of ones own labour tastes the sweetest, says a capitalist. How could he know if he only tastes the fruit of other men"

- Georges van Acker

only if the word "fruit" is used literaly.

At 1/6/03 08:14 PM, swayside wrote:

At 1/6/03 03:37 PM, Slizor wrote:

Swayside you are a true capitalist and there is nothing wrong with the beliefs of capitalism, as communism the roots of these two philosophy are just and fair.

cumminism is never fair.
__________________

There is only one more lifeform on earth thats lives in a similar manner, killing its host. You may of heard of it. Its called a virus.

viruses aren't technically alive.

I think this quote has something to do with this discussion;

Look, your counter-remarks are often very undefended... "communism is never fair" You also ignore parts of the arguement you have no arguement for, at least congratulate him on a good point if it comes across...

And I grow tired of your petty remarks, trying to peg him on 'technicalities' like a virus isn't alive. Put yourself in your shoes, try to understand the concept, and respond to the meaning he tried to convey.

Maybe you don't defend so well because you're tired of repeating yourself though, I sure am, which is why this post stops here.

Know what? Reading all that over, I forgive you, I would get tired dealing with the same topics over and over -.- Your points started out strong but, I understand the degeneration now =P ... Nevermind then...

At 3/22/03 02:51 PM, NoNameProphet wrote: I forgive you,

who is "you"?

At 3/22/03 03:28 PM, swayside wrote:

At 3/22/03 02:51 PM, NoNameProphet wrote: I forgive you,

who is "you"?

Conveniently, you. Just look at the topic above that one, I was talking about you. I thought it would be obvious, sorry. I am just reaaally rushe dfor time and don't remember to type everything I want to say.

At 3/22/03 03:42 PM, NoNameProphet wrote:

I am just reaaally rushe dfor time and don't remember to type everything I want to say.

ok. i'm a little absent minded sometimes, so i do things like that, too.

(months later)

i'm reviving this topic because i think it was one of the best contraversies this forum has ever had.

have at it.

There is a stereotype of everyone in america being fat and going to mcdonalds all the time. No one i know likes to go to mcdonalds. (especially for hamburgergs) I agree that there is enough food in the world that no one stays hungry. But dont point the blame on countries that have obese people because that is just a portion of the population.

I agree with him. But, politics are also a problem. (Somolia, 1993, Militant groups stealing aid)

That's why we have to track our aid.

At 7/18/03 09:34 AM, Forcewinder wrote: There is a stereotype of everyone in america being fat and going to mcdonalds all the time. No one i know likes to go to mcdonalds. (especially for hamburgergs) I agree that there is enough food in the world that no one stays hungry. But dont point the blame on countries that have obese people because that is just a portion of the population.

True. The cost of transporting all of that food to every country in the world to rid the world of hunger would be amazing. We spend billions already just trying to keep AIDS at bay and supply African nations with enough food to keep their populous going for another year. Of course, we could always just install a McDonalds franchise in every starving nation -- but eventually those would become targets for terrorism. That's a good plan: show western compassion by enfranchising every single nation in the world.

What we need to do is TEACH them how to farm etc, instead of giving them food.

Give a man a fish and he will eat for day.
Teach him how to fish and he will eat for the rest of his life.

At 7/20/03 05:18 PM, bumcheekycity wrote: What we need to do is TEACH them how to farm etc, instead of giving them food.

Give a man a fish and he will eat for day.
Teach him how to fish and he will eat for the rest of his life.

What about The Perfect Storm?

At 7/21/03 08:18 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: What about The Perfect Storm?

I hate that film.

Totally late and off topic, but McDonalds seem to have base irony down. Not only were they founded by a man named Crock, but their initial policy was QSC - Quality, Service, Cleanliness.

When was the last time you experienced one of the three in McMeaties, exactly? And bonus points go for getting the reference.